Appeals court validates Iowa law barring sexual, LGBT books from school libraries

The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Monday that Iowa may enforce its law restricting LGBT-related teachings in classrooms and sexually explicit books from school libraries. The three judge panel affirmed the merits of two cases and overturned a lower court’s ruling that stopped the law’s enforcement.

Gov. Kim Reynolds signed the law in 2023 to help ensure students received age-appropriate education from kindergarten through high school. Multiple lawsuits were filed over the law taking issue with the various issues at hand. A group of publishing giants, including Penguin Random House, HarperCollins Publishers, and Macmillan Publishing Group, sued over the law’s library book portion. A separate group of education advocates sued over the law’s regulation of LGBT classroom discussions, alleging it violated free speech rights under the First Amendment. The three-judge panel issued rulings in both lawsuits, remanding both cases to lower courts for further litigation.

What was the court’s rationale? For the publishing lawsuit, the circuit cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, which defined school-sponsored speech. Expressive activities that appear to have the school’s formal approval should be considered school-sponsored speech, according to the 1988 ruling. Schools have the power to regulate any school-sponsored speech linked to legitimate teaching concerns, the Supreme court found. Given that a school library is curated and overseen by school officials, a school library should be characterized as a portion of the school's curriculum and sponsored speech, according to the Monday ruling.

The second ruling addressed the law's portion regulating LGBT discussions in the classroom, with advocates alleging the statute is too vague to be legally enforced. The district court acknowledged that while several terms within the law were undefined, the challenge did not meet the Supreme Court’s precedents defining unconstitutional arguments. A person of ordinary intelligence can reasonably understand the law as it is written, and the lower court’s order to stop the law’s enforcement was an abuse of discretion, according to the separate ruling.

Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird released a Monday statement describing the two rulings as significant wins for parental rights and local education control. Parents should not be concerned that their children are being indoctrinated with inappropriate materials in the classroom, she said.

The ACLU of Iowa’s senior attorney, Thomas Story, warned teachers, students, and parents to stay on guard against educators who may use the law as a discriminatory tool, according to a Monday statement. These rulings run contrary to students’ best interests, and are unconstitutionally overbroad, he added.

Dig deeper: Read Gary Perilloux’s report on Iowa parents fighting a school district that allowed students to socially transition without parental knowledge or consent.